Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal v230230223

Tests:

Switch
const input = 10; switch(input) { case 1: return true; case 2: return true; case 3: return true; case 4: return true; case 5: return true; case 6: return true; case 7: return true; case 8: return true; case 9: return true; case 10: return true; default: return 11; }
Object
const input = 10; const mapping = { '0': true, '1': true, '2': true, '3': true, '4': true, '5': true, '6': true, '7': true, '8': true, '9': true, '10': true, } return mapping[input];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Object

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to switch on a constant value:

1. **Switch statement**: This approach uses a traditional `switch` statement with multiple cases to check the value of the input variable.
2. **Object literal lookup**: This approach uses an object literal (`{ ... }`) to map values to their corresponding boolean results.

**Options being compared**

The two options are compared in terms of performance, specifically:

* **Execution frequency**: How often each option is executed per second (measured in `ExecutionsPerSecond`).
* **Browser-specific variations**: The benchmark runs on multiple browsers and platforms, which may introduce variations in performance due to differences in implementation or optimization.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Switch statement:**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement for simple cases.
* May be optimized by the compiler/interpreter.

Cons:

* Can lead to longer execution paths if there are many cases or long case bodies.
* May not be as efficient as other approaches for very large inputs or complex logic.

**Object literal lookup:**

Pros:

* Often faster than traditional `switch` statements, especially for small to medium-sized input sets.
* Can be more concise and easier to read for simple cases.

Cons:

* Requires an additional data structure (the object) to store the mappings, which may incur memory overhead.
* May not be as efficient for very large inputs or complex logic.

**Other considerations**

* **Memory access patterns**: The benchmark's performance might be influenced by the order and frequency of memory accesses in each approach. Object literal lookup may exhibit better cache locality than traditional `switch` statements.
* **Compiler/interpreter optimizations**: Modern JavaScript engines often optimize `switch` statements using techniques like speculative execution or register allocation. However, object literal lookup might not benefit from these optimizations to the same extent.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no specific libraries are used beyond standard JavaScript features and built-in objects (e.g., `Object`). If a library was used, it would be mentioned in the "Script Preparation Code" or "Html Preparation Code" fields, but none are present here.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The only special feature is the use of an object literal (`{ ... }`) for mapping values to their corresponding boolean results. This is a standard JavaScript feature and not specific to any particular library or syntax.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches that might be compared in a similar benchmark could include:

* **String table lookup**: Similar to object literal lookup, but using a string table instead of an object.
* **Array-based lookups**: Using arrays instead of objects to store the mappings.
* **Regular expressions**: Using regular expressions to match and extract values from input strings.
* **Compiled functions**: Compiling the `switch` statement or object literal lookup into native machine code for better performance.

These alternatives might be compared to determine which approach is most efficient, concise, or maintainable in different scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal v230230223 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):